On 10/24/07, Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org> wrote:> * Casey Schaufler (casey@schaufler-ca.com) wrote:> > And don't give me the old "LKML is a tough crowd" feldercarb.> > Security modules have been much worse. Innovation, even in> > security, is a good thing and treating people harshly, even> > "for their own good", is an impediment to innovation.>> I agree that innovation is critical to the success of Linux, and security> is not immune to that. The trouble is that most of the security modules> that have come forward have had some real serious shortcomings.

Key-based masterlocks are easily broken with freon, and their combolocks are easily brute-forced in about ten minutes. Yet, I'll stilluse them to lock up my bike and garage.

The idea that poor security is worse than no security is fallacious,and not backed up by common experience.

> I do> believe it is prudent to keep in-tree security sensitive code under> high scrutiny because we do not want to create security holes by adding> problematic security code.